alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018328EN.01005501.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/55

---

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — NSC Holding v EUIPO — Ibercondor Barcelona (CONDOR SERVICE, NSC)

(Case T-468/18)

(2018/C 328/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: NSC Holding GmbH & Cie. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Eichhorst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercondor Barcelona SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘CONDOR SERVICE, NSC’ — Application for registration No 15 292 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2440/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings;

in the alternative,

| — | order that the case be referred back to the defendant for a fresh independent review. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the case be referred back to the defendant for a fresh independent review.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
19710

#### Kauwe v. State

Affirmed
# C_2019025EN.01004301.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/43

---

Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11)

(Case T-653/18)

(2019/C 25/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark GIORGIO ARMANI le Sac 11 — Application for registration No 13 826 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2462/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision so as to hold that the appeal brought by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be rejected and the EUTM Application to be admitted; or, alternatively, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision so as to hold that the appeal brought by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be rejected and the EUTM Application to be admitted; or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the procedural rules applicable to proceedings before EUIPO and in particular of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the procedural rules applicable to proceedings before EUIPO and in particular of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 32.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Fund's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                  
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.



|Date:             |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|November 15, 2010 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | Marc. N. Teal              
|                  |  | Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**Certificationof the Chief Executive Officer**

**CertificationPursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Rule 15d-14(b)**

**Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of theUnited Sates Code,**

**asAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John T. Grigsby,Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| March 30, 2004 |   /s/ John T.  Grigsby, Jr.  |   |
|----------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|           | John T. Grigsby, Jr.,                  |
|           | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### State v. Shak

16580

12/21/94

Affirmed
# C_2020287EN.01001301.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG

(Case C-343/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Point 2 of Article 7 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Place where the damage occurred - Manipulation of data relating to the emission of exhaust gases from engines produced by a motor vehicle manufacturer)

(2020/C 287/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Defendant: Volkswagen AG

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where a manufacturer in a Member State has unlawfully equipped its vehicles with software that manipulates data relating to exhaust gas emissions before those vehicles are purchased from a third party in another Member State, the place where the damage occurs is in that latter Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Report) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Louis R. Tomasetta, the Chief Executive Officer and Yatin Mody, the Chief Financial Officer
of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 9, 2005



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/s/ LOUIS R. TOMASETTA                                  
|Louis R. Tomasetta President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)                           



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/s/ YATIN MODY                                                
|Yatin Mody Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
# C_2020103EN.01002902.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/29

---

Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS

(Case T-388/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection of request - Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations - Out of time - Excusable error - Inadmissible)

(2020/C 103/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of an implied decision of the EEAS, alleged to have been made on 4 September 2017, rejecting the request for assistance lodged by the applicant and, second, the EEAS’ decision of 28 March 2018 dismissing the applicant’s complaint of 29 November 2017 against the implied rejection.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | WV is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

WV is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.

---
# C_2018436EN.01002302.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 September 2018 — LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

(Case C-564/18)

(2018/C 436/32)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LH

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Questions referred

| 1. | May the provisions on inadmissible applications in Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’), be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s legislation pursuant to which an application is inadmissible in the context of the asylum procedure when the applicant has arrived in that Member State, Hungary, via a country where he is not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May the provisions on inadmissible applications in Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (1) on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (‘the Procedures Directive’), be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s legislation pursuant to which an application is inadmissible in the context of the asylum procedure when the applicant has arrived in that Member State, Hungary, via a country where he is not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed?

| 2. | May Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 31 of the Procedures Directive — having regard also to the provisions of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights — be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s legislation complies with those provisions when it lays down a mandatory time limit of eight days for the administrative-law proceedings before a court in respect of applications declared inadmissible in asylum procedures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 31 of the Procedures Directive — having regard also to the provisions of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights — be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s legislation complies with those provisions when it lays down a mandatory time limit of eight days for the administrative-law proceedings before a court in respect of applications declared inadmissible in asylum procedures?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

---
درخت تصمیم گیری رسمی شناسایی گوسفند و بز فدرال برای حیوانات در تجارت بین ایالتی

قوانین شناسایی زمانی اعمال می شود که حیوان برای اولین بار وارد تجارت بین ایالتی می شود، مانند تخلیه حیوانات در بازارها، حراج ها، نمایشگاه ها 

یا سایر مکان هایی که تجارت بین ایالتی انجام می شود؛ جابجایی حیوانات در مرز بین دو ایالت؛ فروش حیوانات به خریدار خارج از ایالت؛ یا زمانی که 

افرادی که به تجارت بین ایالتی می پردازند و حیوانات را خریداری می کنند. ایالت محل نگهداری یا ایالت دریافت کننده حیوانات ممکن است الزامات 

اضافی داشته باشند.

1 فقط زمانی اعمال می شود که هر دو محل متعلق به یا در اجاره یک شخص باشد و هیچ گونه ارتباطی با حیوانات شناسایی نشده دیگر از گله دیگر وجود نداشته باشد. 

2 یک بازار مورد تأیید ممکن است حیوانات سالم با منبع مختلط شناسایی نشده را برای شناسایی و فروش نامحدود نپذیرد. چنین حیواناتی باید به صورت محدود به کشتارگاه فروخته شوند. برای پیروی 

از مقررات، بازارها همچنین باید یک توافق نامه انطباق برای پذیرش چنین حیواناتی با سن 18 ماه یا بیشتر داشته باشند. 

3 بارنامه مالک برای حیواناتی که به طور رسمی و جداگانه شناسایی شده اند و در کانال های کشتار نیستند و به بازارهای داخل ایالتی می روند، موردنیاز نیست.

از این جا شروع کنید

بله خیر

بله

بله

بله

بله

بله

بله

خیر

خیر

خیر

خیر

خیر

خیر

آیا حیوانات از نظر 

جنسی سالم هستند؟

آیا حیوانات در کانال های 

کشتار هستند؟

آیا حیوانات زیر 18 ماه )شامل منبع 

واحد و مختلط( هستند؟

آیا حیوانات برای اهداف مدیریتی 

1 به بازار مورد تأیید 

یا چراگاه

2 منتقل می شوند؟

فدرال

آیا حیوانات از یک منبع 

واحد هستند؟

شناسه رسمی حیوان و 

بارنامه مالک 

موردنیاز است.

3 شامل شماره شناسایی گروه 

از بارنامه مالک

می توانید به جای شناسه رسمی حیوان و گواهی 

بازرسی دامپزشکی بین ایالتی استفاده کنید.

شناسه رسمی حیوان و 

گواهی بازرسی دامپزشکی بین 

ایالتی موردنیاز است.

شناسه رسمی حیوان موردنیاز 

است )هیچ بارنامه مالک یا گواهی 

بازرسی دامپزشکی بین ایالتی 

موردنیاز نیست(.

آیا حیوانات زیر 18 ماه سن 

دارند؟

الزاماتی وجود ندارد.

آیا حیوانات از مرزهای 

ایالتی عبور می کنند؟
# C_2021297EN.01000601.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v WR

(Case C-279/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - General arrangements for excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 33(3) - Goods ‘released for consumption’ in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State - Person liable to pay the excise duty that has become chargeable in respect of those goods - Person holding the goods intended for delivery in another Member State - Transporter of the goods)

(2021/C 297/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: WR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(3) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a person who transports, on behalf of others, excise goods to another Member State, and who is in physical possession of those goods at the moment when they have become chargeable to the corresponding excise duty, is liable for that excise duty, under that provision, even if that person has no right to or interest in those goods and is not aware that they are subject to excise duty or, if so aware, is not aware that they have become chargeable to the corresponding excise duty.

---

(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.

---
# C_2019025EN.01004201.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson)

(Case T-36/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Celeson - Earlier international word mark CELESIO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 25/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Celesio AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2017 (Case R 1004/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Celesio and Asahi Intecc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Asahi Intecc Co., Ltd to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL W. LONG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-5027

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 12-CV-0647, Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________ 

Decided: April 9, 2013 

______________________ 

MICHAEL W. LONG, of LaGrange, Kentucky, pro se. 

JAMES P. CONNOR, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With 

him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Principal Deputy Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E.

DAVIDSON, Director, REGINALD T. BLADES, JR., Assistant 

Director 

______________________ 
2 MICHAEL LONG v. US

Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

Micheal W. Long appeals from the final judgment of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing 

without prejudice his complaint for want of jurisdiction. 

Micheal Long v. United States, No. 12-CV-0647 (Fed. Cl.

Dec 7, 2012), ECF No. 6. We affirm. 

I 

Mr. Long filed his complaint against the United 

States on September 27, 2012. His complaint described 

historic injustices of slavery in this country and elsewhere, with specific reference to the history of African 

slave trade. The complaint alleged that the United States 

“depriv[ed]” Mr. Long of his “rights secured by the U.S. 

Constitution and the laws [ ] of the United States.” Mr. 

Long sought monetary damages from the United States.

The Court of Federal Claims by Order dismissed the 

complaint without prejudice. The court noted that it was 

obligated to dismiss any case over which it does not have 

jurisdiction. Citing United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 

206, 216-17 (1983), the court’s Order explained that it 

lacks jurisdiction over any complaint seeking money 

damages from the United States that fails to reference a 

money-mandating statute pursuant to which money 

damages can be assessed against the United States. 

Because Mr. Long’s complaint cited no money-mandating 

source of authority, the court dismissed the complaint for 

lack of jurisdiction.

II

Mr. Long timely appealed to this court. We review 

questions of jurisdiction without deference. See Dehne v. 
 MICHAEL LONG v. US 3

United States, 970 F.2d 890, 892 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not 

sufficient that Mr. Long invoked jurisdiction under the 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491, which waives sovereign 

immunity to sue the United States for money damages, 

because the Tucker Act is not money-mandating. We 

have reviewed Mr. Long’s complaint carefully, and we 

agree with the Court of Federal Claims that Mr. Long has 

not cited a money-mandating authority. Therefore, we 

conclude that the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed Mr. Long’s complaint. 

The final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is 

affirmed. 

COSTS

No costs.
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### City Exp., Inc. v. Express Partners; Express Partners v. Architects 2, Inc.; Architects 2, Inc. v. Enomoto

17351

3/10/98

Granted